NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1292293294295296298»

Comments

  • edited November 2023 Posts: 1,002
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh: they don't need to explain it. It'll be in a different continuity.

    Ah, it's a different continuity. That explains everything! Now I understand how they can kill him off then say he'll be back minutes later. It's all about continuity.

    Now it all makes perfect sense!

    Thanks for helping me out with that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2023 Posts: 14,945
    I have no idea why the snarkiness is needed.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 2,887
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    All fans of anything do really to some extent. We just love to complain about something we love.

    It's weird, right?

    I wouldn’t say so necessarily. It’s just what fans do.

    But I do get it, I’ve read some discussions on here where even I’ve not seen the point in complaining about something to do with Bond (the above is probably an example, haha). But I suppose I can’t talk, I’ve done it myself likely.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    mtm wrote: »
    Imagine being that reader griping about Conan Doyle killing off Sherlock Holmes. Nowadays it's one of his most memorable stories.
    And yes, they brought him back after that too.

    Doyle was able to bring back Holmes in a way that made sense, which is something they can't do with the cinematic Bond.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If you cannot handle it, stay away from NTTD threads and pretend the film never happened. It's really easy. The more you complain, the worse it's going to get.

    So the only people that should post on NTTD threads are people that like the movie?

    Jesus, some of you guys can be really snotty on here.

    No no, you don't get it. My point is that for two years you have been suffering because of NTTD. I don't care what anyone posts. I just think that it's best for one's health to let go at some point. If Bond's death, a few minutes before his return is announced, pains you so much, just pretend the film never happened. You've got 24 Bond films (26 if you're being generous) to enjoy. Don't let NTTD get on your nerves.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 1,002
    mtm wrote: »
    I have no idea why the snarkiness is needed.

    It's more exasperation to be honest. Let me try to explain.

    For real world fiction to work, it has to adhere to real world rules. James Bond doesn't teleport, time travel, fly or have X-ray eyes. He doesn't regenerate like Dr Who or have magic powers like Harry Potter. He was conceived as a literary character just like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes and Gabriel Oaks. He doesn't die and come back to life, and no matter what word you use*, killing him and bringing him back is a deceitful thing to do, and shows no respect for the audience. How on earth can the viewer have any emotional attachment to a character dying, when they're told the same character will be back, minutes later?
    Simon Mayo made exactly this point to Mark Kermode when the latter did his review. He asked "what real-word cinematic character has been killed off and resurrected in the same series?". Kermode put him right in the same way I've been constantly put right on here.
    "It's a different continuity".

    There you go. It's an explanation that means nothing, because it makes no sense. If Fleming had killed Bond at the end of FRWL, and bought him back for the next book, saying "this is a different continuity", people would have rightly complained. Yet we're supposed to accept this silly conceit in a movie series. Why? Because bleedin' Batman did it? Sorry, but that's not good enough for James Bond.

    Read this next sentence and please ponder on its meaning. It completely explains my stance in five words.

    When anything's possible, nothing matters.



    *Let's compile a list, shall we?

    Continuity.
    Alternate Universe.
    Character Arc.
    Timeline.
    Incarnation.

    Are there any I've missed?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    mtm wrote: »
    I have no idea why the snarkiness is needed.

    It's more exasperation to be honest. Let me try to explain.

    For real world fiction to work, it has to adhere to real world rules. James Bond doesn't teleport, time travel, fly or have X-ray eyes. He doesn't regenerate like Dr Who or have magic powers like Harry Potter. He was conceived as a literary character just like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes and Gabriel Oaks. He doesn't die and come back to life, and no matter what word you use*, killing him and bringing him back is a deceitful thing to do, and shows no respect for the audience. How on earth can the viewer have any emotional attachment to a character dying, when they're told the same character will be back, minutes later?
    Simon Mayo made exactly this point to Mark Kermode when the latter did his review. He asked "what real-word cinematic character has been killed off and resurrected in the same series?". Kermode put him right in the same way I've been constantly put right on here.
    "It's a different continuity".

    There you go. It's an explanation that means nothing, because it makes no sense. If Fleming had killed Bond at the end of FRWL, and bought him back for the next book, saying "this is a different continuity", people would have rightly complained. Yet we're supposed to accept this silly conceit in a movie series. Why? Because bleedin' Batman did it? Sorry, but that's not good enough for James Bond.

    Read this next sentence and please ponder on its meaning. It completely explains my stance in five words.

    When anything's possible, nothing matters.



    *Let's compile a lost, shall we?

    Continuity.
    Alternate Universe.
    Character Arc.
    Timeline.
    Incarnation.

    Are there any I've missed?

    Yes! You've explained it very well.
  • Posts: 2,887
    Perhaps a one off ‘into the Bond-verse’ film featuring the remaining Bond actors (with Lazenby noticeably absent) and cameos from an AI generated Connery and Moore will explain all this.

    I mean, probably won’t… ah well.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2023 Posts: 23,536
    mtm wrote: »
    I have no idea why the snarkiness is needed.

    It's more exasperation to be honest. Let me try to explain.

    For real world fiction to work, it has to adhere to real world rules. James Bond doesn't teleport, time travel, fly or have X-ray eyes. He doesn't regenerate like Dr Who or have magic powers like Harry Potter. He was conceived as a literary character just like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes and Gabriel Oaks. He doesn't die and come back to life, and no matter what word you use*, killing him and bringing him back is a deceitful thing to do, and shows no respect for the audience. How on earth can the viewer have any emotional attachment to a character dying, when they're told the same character will be back, minutes later?
    Simon Mayo made exactly this point to Mark Kermode when the latter did his review. He asked "what real-word cinematic character has been killed off and resurrected in the same series?". Kermode put him right in the same way I've been constantly put right on here.
    "It's a different continuity".

    There you go. It's an explanation that means nothing, because it makes no sense. If Fleming had killed Bond at the end of FRWL, and bought him back for the next book, saying "this is a different continuity", people would have rightly complained. Yet we're supposed to accept this silly conceit in a movie series. Why? Because bleedin' Batman did it? Sorry, but that's not good enough for James Bond.

    Read this next sentence and please ponder on its meaning. It completely explains my stance in five words.

    When anything's possible, nothing matters.



    *Let's compile a lost, shall we?

    Continuity.
    Alternate Universe.
    Character Arc.
    Timeline.
    Incarnation.

    Are there any I've missed?

    But anything IS possible. An untrained Bond flies into space. He suffers a heart attack, technically dies, and then walks again and finishes the best poker game he has ever played. He survives the worst explosions and blasts. Armies of goons fire at him like an execution squad: not a scratch. Men have steel teeth that cut through metal cables. Everything is possible and anything goes and not even the sky is the limit. That’s why this series has been so successful. People love that.

    But what you are talking about is a reboot between film 25 and film 26. That is not even a case of "anything is possible" because both have nothing to do with each other, the same way GE has nothing to do with LTK. The same way LALD has nothing to do with DAF.

    What is so hard to understand about it? Every Bond film is its own thing. Otherwise, how can a WWII vet be running around as an active field agent in a post-9/11 world?

    You are right about Fleming. But Fleming published one book every year for about a decade and, indeed, kept a tight continuity, even though most of his books also read as standalone adventures. The films, however, are not like that. If Fleming had described Bond as a handsome, dark-haired man in one book and turned him obese and blond in the next one, people, would also have rightly complained. The films went from one dude to another, then back to the former, then to yet another. They took one M from a seasoned Bond and re-introduced her in a beginning Bond's career. The films have never cared about any of this. You are right about Fleming, but the comparison to the films is false. Comparing the Bond films to the Batman films is, however, not as silly as you seem to think.
  • Posts: 1,002
    So would you be happy if James Bond could time-travel, and teleport, and have X-ray eyes?
    Because that's what you're saying, when you say "anything is possible".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2023 Posts: 14,945
    mtm wrote: »
    I have no idea why the snarkiness is needed.

    It's more exasperation to be honest. Let me try to explain.

    For real world fiction to work, it has to adhere to real world rules. James Bond doesn't teleport, time travel, fly or have X-ray eyes. He doesn't regenerate like Dr Who or have magic powers like Harry Potter. He was conceived as a literary character just like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes and Gabriel Oaks. He doesn't die and come back to life, and no matter what word you use*, killing him and bringing him back is a deceitful thing to do, and shows no respect for the audience. How on earth can the viewer have any emotional attachment to a character dying, when they're told the same character will be back, minutes later?
    Simon Mayo made exactly this point to Mark Kermode when the latter did his review. He asked "what real-word cinematic character has been killed off and resurrected in the same series?". Kermode put him right in the same way I've been constantly put right on here.
    "It's a different continuity".

    There you go. It's an explanation that means nothing, because it makes no sense. If Fleming had killed Bond at the end of FRWL, and bought him back for the next book, saying "this is a different continuity", people would have rightly complained. Yet we're supposed to accept this silly conceit in a movie series. Why? Because bleedin' Batman did it? Sorry, but that's not good enough for James Bond.

    Read this next sentence and please ponder on its meaning. It completely explains my stance in five words.

    When anything's possible, nothing matters.



    *Let's compile a list, shall we?

    Continuity.
    Alternate Universe.
    Character Arc.
    Timeline.
    Incarnation.

    Are there any I've missed?

    It's not just Batman though; it's so many other fictional characters throughout the history of fiction. I kind of don't get how you're not familiar with this happening. Stories get re-told all the time. 'How come Macbeth's back on? I saw him get killed last year' said no-one ever.
    I get that you're saying it's empty if they're not ending the character forever, but then if he was brought back with a really good explanation, just as you asked for in the way Conan Doyle did it, then it would still feel empty, surely? You keep dancing between reasons why it's bad, and that's why it's hard to follow exactly what your issue with it is.
    You say 'when anything's possible nothing matters': well now we know Bond can die. When all the evidence in the last 70 years pointed to the contrary and that it was impossible for him to do so.
  • Posts: 1,002
    Macbeth is a single story. Quite different to what we're talking about here.
    mtm wrote: »
    You keep dancing between reasons why it's bad, and that's why it's hard to follow exactly what your issue with it is.

    I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, even down to a five word sentence. I can't say it any other way, I'm sorry.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2023 Posts: 14,945
    Macbeth is a single story. Quite different to what we're talking about here.

    Not really; this is the story of James Bond. It's starting from the beginning again, just like Macbeth does every time it's put on. By the same producers sometimes!! Just because one is divided into acts and the other into films makes no difference.
    mtm wrote: »
    You keep dancing between reasons why it's bad, and that's why it's hard to follow exactly what your issue with it is.

    I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, even down to a five word sentence. I can't say it any other way, I'm sorry.

    First it was 'not a tricky concept to understand' then you complained that Conan Doyle did it in a way that 'made sense'. As I say, you keep swapping reasons around: either you can't understand it or you can.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I have no idea why the snarkiness is needed.

    It's more exasperation to be honest. Let me try to explain.

    For real world fiction to work, it has to adhere to real world rules. James Bond doesn't teleport, time travel, fly or have X-ray eyes. He doesn't regenerate like Dr Who or have magic powers like Harry Potter. He was conceived as a literary character just like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes and Gabriel Oaks. He doesn't die and come back to life, and no matter what word you use*, killing him and bringing him back is a deceitful thing to do, and shows no respect for the audience. How on earth can the viewer have any emotional attachment to a character dying, when they're told the same character will be back, minutes later?
    Simon Mayo made exactly this point to Mark Kermode when the latter did his review. He asked "what real-word cinematic character has been killed off and resurrected in the same series?". Kermode put him right in the same way I've been constantly put right on here.
    "It's a different continuity".

    There you go. It's an explanation that means nothing, because it makes no sense. If Fleming had killed Bond at the end of FRWL, and bought him back for the next book, saying "this is a different continuity", people would have rightly complained. Yet we're supposed to accept this silly conceit in a movie series. Why? Because bleedin' Batman did it? Sorry, but that's not good enough for James Bond.

    Read this next sentence and please ponder on its meaning. It completely explains my stance in five words.

    When anything's possible, nothing matters.



    *Let's compile a list, shall we?

    Continuity.
    Alternate Universe.
    Character Arc.
    Timeline.
    Incarnation.

    Are there any I've missed?

    It's not just Batman though; it's so many other fictional characters throughout the history of fiction. I kind of don't get how you're not familiar with this happening. Stories get re-told all the time. 'How come Macbeth's back on? I saw him get killed last year' said no-one ever.
    I get that you're saying it's empty if they're not ending the character forever, but then if he was brought back with a really good explanation, just as you asked for in the way Conan Doyle did it, then it would still feel empty, surely? You keep dancing between reasons why it's bad, and that's why it's hard to follow exactly what your issue with it is.

    I agree with everything you wrote here, @mtm.
    So would you be happy if James Bond could time-travel, and teleport, and have X-ray eyes?
    Because that's what you're saying, when you say "anything is possible".

    No, because now you're just taking things into extremes. "But they kill Bond and then bring him back, isn't that extreme?," you ask. Here's why that reasoning is flawed. They didn't kill Bond and brought that same Bond back in the same film. They killed the Craig Bond and then announced that the character will be back for other adventures. They know that audiences are smart enough to understand what that means: different actor, different story, and no ties whatsoever to the previous films. Apart from you and the guy who didn't even see the film, I haven't heard anyone complain about this! Even the Bond fans among my students talked about how they felt about the film, and then started dreaming about where to take the series next with the next guy. I honestly think you are making far too big a point of this. Would you have been satisfied if the "James Bond will return" line hadn't been added, and if Bond 26 was announced a few years later? Just an honest, neutral question, no trap.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 1,002
    mtm wrote: »
    then you complained that Conan Doyle did it in a way that 'made sense'.

    You've completely lost me there.

    I said that Conan Doyle bought Holmes back in a way that made sense. Nothing wrong with that. If Doyle had given Holmes an explicit death (like Bond's was in NTTD), then he'd have done the honourable thing and written any future books based in the time before Holmes' death.
    Because Holmes' death had an element of ambiguity, Doyle was able to resurrect him with plausibility. Something that the James Bond series of films is unable to do.

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,390
    mtm wrote: »
    then you complained that Conan Doyle did it in a way that 'made sense'.

    You've completely lost me there.

    I said that Conan Doyle bought Holmes back in a way that made sense. Nothing wrong with that. If Doyle had given Holmes an explicit death (like Bond's was in NTTD), then he'd have done the honourable thing and written any future books in based in the time before Holmes' death.
    Because Holmes' death had an element of ambiguity, Doyle was able to resurrect him with plausibility. Something that the James Bond series of films is unable to do.

    Yes, I wished they've kept Bond's death vague.
    Like yes, it would be messy now, because what?

    Another new timeline for Bond 26? Where would that set? Another reboot?

    Unless, they went back to the original timeline where DAD ended, leaving Craig's Bond Era an isolated one, but if they created a new timeline, then it's time now to introduce...... The Codename Theory!

    Because it would be already three different timelines: The Classic Bond Era, The Craig Era, and the New Bond Actor's Era.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    then you complained that Conan Doyle did it in a way that 'made sense'.

    You've completely lost me there.

    I said that Conan Doyle bought Holmes back in a way that made sense. Nothing wrong with that. If Doyle had given Holmes an explicit death (like Bond's was in NTTD), then he'd have done the honourable thing and written any future books in based in the time before Holmes' death.
    Because Holmes' death had an element of ambiguity, Doyle was able to resurrect him with plausibility. Something that the James Bond series of films is unable to do.

    Yes, I wished they've kept Bond's death vague.
    Like yes, it would be messy now, because what?

    Another new timeline for Bond 26? Where would that set? Another reboot?

    Unless, they went back to the original timeline where DAD ended, leaving Craig's Bond Era an isolated one, but if they created a new timeline, then it's time now to introduce...... The Codename Theory!

    Because it would be already three different timelines: The Classic Bond Era, The Craig Era, and the New Bond Actor's Era.

    Apart from the fact that the "classic Bond era" is not one timeline -- is the Bond from LTK really the one who raided a hollowed-out volcano, lectured a girl on taking lives and flew into space? -- yes, that's how it will be. Are we honestly going to complain about "already three different timelines' in a 60+ year old film series? A college student who went to see DN is now someone's great-granddad. Spider-Man was given three different timelines in less than a third of that time. I'm just not getting what's so upsetting about this.

    And again, anyone trying to to fit the first 20 films into one timeline is wasting their time if you ask me. Honestly, I doubt that Harry and Cubby were ever worried about what happened before and how to logically follow up on that. When they considered bringing Goldfinger's brother into the films, it was because of the "brand" Goldfinger and its successful reputation, nothing else.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,945
    mtm wrote: »
    then you complained that Conan Doyle did it in a way that 'made sense'.

    You've completely lost me there.

    I said that Conan Doyle bought Holmes back in a way that made sense. Nothing wrong with that. If Doyle had given Holmes an explicit death (like Bond's was in NTTD), then he'd have done the honourable thing and written any future books based in the time before Holmes' death.
    Because Holmes' death had an element of ambiguity, Doyle was able to resurrect him with plausibility. Something that the James Bond series of films is unable to do.

    There you go: you're switching tack again to complaining about continuity. And when that's pointed out to you, you get snarky and say you actually don't like it for another different reason.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 1,002
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Would you have been satisfied if the "James Bond will return" line hadn't been added, and if Bond 26 was announced a few years later? Just an honest, neutral question, no trap.

    I'd always be unsatisfied with any James Bond film that killed him off. The fact that they announced that he's not dead in the credits only makes it worse.

    Wanna know what I want? I want to see him emerge from the cloud of the explosion, whizzing across the water on Roger's jet-ski with the James Bond theme blaring. That's satisfaction! None of this nuking a lovelorn Bond with a cuddly toy in his belt. Sod all that!

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,511
    When I last rewatched the film the scene that I really enjoyed was the foggy forest sequence. I absolutely love the way Bond is just ruthlessly gunning bad guys down, without a thought or hesitation.

    The atmosphere of it is great too, I love how ominous it is, Bond feels in danger there although he looks composed, which is so Bondian.
  • Posts: 2,887
    Honestly, I don’t think anyone’s going to be confused by Bond 26 coming after NTTD. You might get a few people who don’t quite get it, but in the same way most viewers in 2006 could comprehend the idea of a reboot for CR, I think they’ll do the same this time round.

    At risk of sounding flippant, it’s a bit thankless thinking too deeply about the logic of timelines or how stuff in the old series connects. And hey, if anything it’s kinda cool we’re getting a new Bond that’s distinct from Craig’s. No baggage from the last films. It’s similar to how I felt about the new Batman film after Nolan’s trilogy - it’s a chance to do something genuinely fresh.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 534
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    then you complained that Conan Doyle did it in a way that 'made sense'.

    You've completely lost me there.

    I said that Conan Doyle bought Holmes back in a way that made sense. Nothing wrong with that. If Doyle had given Holmes an explicit death (like Bond's was in NTTD), then he'd have done the honourable thing and written any future books in based in the time before Holmes' death.
    Because Holmes' death had an element of ambiguity, Doyle was able to resurrect him with plausibility. Something that the James Bond series of films is unable to do.

    Yes, I wished they've kept Bond's death vague.
    Like yes, it would be messy now, because what?

    Another new timeline for Bond 26? Where would that set? Another reboot?

    Unless, they went back to the original timeline where DAD ended, leaving Craig's Bond Era an isolated one, but if they created a new timeline, then it's time now to introduce...... The Codename Theory!

    Because it would be already three different timelines: The Classic Bond Era, The Craig Era, and the New Bond Actor's Era.

    Apart from the fact that the "classic Bond era" is not one timeline -- is the Bond from LTK really the one who raided a hollowed-out volcano, lectured a girl on taking lives and flew into space? -- yes, that's how it will be. Are we honestly going to complain about "already three different timelines' in a 60+ year old film series? A college student who went to see DN is now someone's great-granddad. Spider-Man was given three different timelines in less than a third of that time. I'm just not getting what's so upsetting about this.

    And again, anyone trying to to fit the first 20 films into one timeline is wasting their time if you ask me. Honestly, I doubt that Harry and Cubby were ever worried about what happened before and how to logically follow up on that. When they considered bringing Goldfinger's brother into the films, it was because of the "brand" Goldfinger and its successful reputation, nothing else.

    Totally agree, and as another example Doctor Who is having this at the moment with everything from 2005 to 2022 becoming it's own era, and everything from 1963-89 is refers to as the 'Classic era' but that betrays how complex and disparate that period was. Just like with Bond, I don't think it's that fruitful an area of discussion.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,390
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Would you have been satisfied if the "James Bond will return" line hadn't been added, and if Bond 26 was announced a few years later? Just an honest, neutral question, no trap.
    [/quote]

    I don't think I've said this statement 😅
    There's a technical error here, perhaps?

    Could you clarify it to me, maybe I could remember this statement? Thank you.
  • Posts: 1,002
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Could you clarify it to me, maybe I could remember this statement? Thank you.

    Sorry, that was my fault. I've edited it now.
  • Maybe the next Bond film should open with a skeleton walking into M’s office saying “007 reporting for Duty.” That way we can avoid having to do a recast and just use CGI, and they could bring back Craig again to record lines in a booth.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Could you clarify it to me, maybe I could remember this statement? Thank you.

    Sorry, that was my fault. I've edited it now.

    👍
  • Posts: 1,002
    007HallY wrote: »
    Batman
    another example Doctor Who

    Don't forget Godzilla!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    So would you be happy if James Bond could time-travel, and teleport, and have X-ray eyes?
    Because that's what you're saying, when you say "anything is possible".

    Yes... That’s how fiction works.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    So would you be happy if James Bond could time-travel, and teleport, and have X-ray eyes?
    Because that's what you're saying, when you say "anything is possible".

    Yes... That’s how fiction works.

    Well, it's seemed like that's the majority of fandom really wanted these days, they want fantasy.

    But I liked my Bond to be realistic.
  • Posts: 1,002
    So would you be happy if James Bond could time-travel, and teleport, and have X-ray eyes?
    Because that's what you're saying, when you say "anything is possible".

    Yes... That’s how fiction works.

    That's how science fiction works.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    James Bond films aren’t even realistic. They’re fantastical. Even Fleming had Bond fighting off a giant squid.
Sign In or Register to comment.